The cost of peace

[hazard]

You don't need more money than the next... what was it, the combined spending of 8 of the 9 top spenders on the military for that.

I didn't say it was efficient, just that that's what we're buying with it. Trying to get that price to performance ratio a little more favorable... I'm not even qualified to pretend to be qualified to make a suggestion.

Taking this to politics because it's going to get political.

No, the USA does not require more money spend on its military than the next 8 top spenders, combined, to be able to afford the taxpayers to complain about the homelessness and being hungry, or to make sure people aren't abducted in the middle of the night, sometimes in plain view I'll note, for being inconvenient to the government.

Why, the last one in particular has been shown to be something the military does not protect against at all, just this year. Are we quite certain that everyone was returned?


The USA has 2 massive oceans protecting it, along with Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Both are nations which, if the USA so desired, be defeated in any invasion scenario with half the military spending, total, and at the same time. Even the USA would not attack a nation with the military capacity the USA would have at half its military spending for any reason, because there is no way to win that war without being ruined in a Pyrrhic victory at best.

The USA isn't spending money on the military to purchase and insure freedom and liberty for its own people. It's also not spending money on the military to purchase and insure freedom and liberty for its allies, although it says it does, and it might even be a desired and deliberately maintained and cultivated side effect. The USA is spending money on its military for the economical benefits it offers. Banana republic is an old term for a reason and it's one the USA caused to come into existence, and the USA hasn't really ever stepped away from military adventurism for the sake of its economics.

With the political influence and growth of the military-industrial complex the matter has not improved. I mean, for those companies to continue to grow and exist, as is the proper way of things, more, bigger and more expensive munitions and guns and uniforms and vehicles and so on must be sold, in bigger quantities, and who better to buy them than the government, especially when the government will then make use of them in combat and thus need and desire replacements?

[classicdrogn]

I'm not arguing against anything Hazard says here, just to be clear. The question was "what the hell are you buying with that much money;" that's what we're buying. It being a case of spending like a college kid with their first credit card "only for emergencies" living on emergency pizza and buying an emergency top-end computer to play Fortnite do their Statistics homework on is just par for the course with Congress, who are called that because the only time they aren't taking a big corporate dick is when they're returning the favor.